My Dad And His Diabetes GONE? From A Herb! Yeah Right. ~The Truth~

was diagnosed with diabetes mellitus just two years ago and always seemed very healthy,

there had to be something we were all missing.

I have always been a "health nut" par se, but as I researched about reversing diabetes naturally,

I found this other less followed path; I thought I never would have dreamed

I would be where I am at today, a full vegan that is. Thanks to movies like Forks over Knives and People like Dr.Campbell's study, Dr.Gregor, And Gary Youroski on Youtube.

It really is difficult to break a disillusion that could have been placed

on us through social engineering at a very young age, but I am a realist and I use natural sensical observations in my daily affairs.

If you research who I am, you will see that many of my scrupulous studies corrolate right along with the China study, which is why I had to take this class. So far I really am enjoying Cornell University's Plant Based Nutrition class.

I look forward to learning more about how I can really efficiently conduct a vegan, plant based diet properly, if not already doing so. I feel great already, as I used to deal with depression and I have taken many health supplements in the past, after discovering and research what Codex Alimentarius was,

I know now that we must get our nutrient vitamins from bioavailable sources of live enzymes,

such as whole foods, as Dr. Campbell would say.

I researched a miracle plant called Moringa (and I am not giving medical advice here) and I grew it natural organic form and discovered it could REVERSE diabetes, cancer, and over 300 different diseases; so I gave it a shot, the drugs were only helping kill my dad.

I am not here to push my business, but I began a business actually selling this plant in whole form & several other forms since all parts of the plant are edible; it is referred to as a miracle tree. I owe the word an explanation of its powers, because it cured my dad of diabetes in under a month, doctors were shocked to see his blood levels were perfect, he hasn't been on his insulin shots in over a year and a half now (http://plottpalmtree.miiduu.com/health-care/moringa-reviews-amp-testimonials).

This is a Overview a year ago...

read the update below this

My Story -Click To Read

I am still working on getting him on a plant based diet, he is getting very close, and his diet has changed dramatically since I shared with him the China Study

and many of Dr.Campbell's videos online.

I even promote this course on my website, because I want the whole world to wake up to seeing a different perspective.

One thing I know is that a person can NEVER change if they are never given a reason to, so I make it my life to share my dad,

Poison is never really a healthy choice, neither are lies, but since we can't know the full truth;

let us strive to not EXCUSING what we do know and make a step towards change with what we do know, together.

The one thing I really love about my job, is that I get to wake up and live my dream and at the same time, I get to save lives...

And together we do so.

A Boy Makes Excuses And A Man Makes Change.

Eric Geoffrey Plott~

~Harvard Researcher

Cornell Nutrition; Plant Based Student.

To Learn about the moringa I have composed over 70 Videos dedicated to it, I call it the Perfectional Plant, The Most Nutritional Tree On This Planet.

To Watch My Playlist CLICK HERE:

CORNELL ASSIGNMENT- BY ERIC G. PLOTT

Harvard Student- Transfer To Cornell Nutrition.

•How Science Changes Our Worldview

What Is Science?

Scientists strive to understand, describe, explain, and predict the structure and behavior of the natural world. Philosophically, science is grounded in some basic assumptions, including:

That the natural world can be rationally explained

That reality is objective and consistent

That human beings have the capacity to perceive reality accurately

Though science is based on the belief that the world is understandable and predictable, it cannot—nor do scientists presume to—capture the reality of the natural world completely or precisely. As Dr. Campbell comments in the State of Health lecture:

In my realm of thinking, as far as research is concerned, I'd like to talk about science being an art of observation, basically pursuing a truth. Not necessarily ever finding a truth, but pursuing the truth, and in the process actually gathering evidence to a point where we have so much evidence, let’s say, for a certain point of view that then enables us to make decisions about ourselves, or about the society.

Scientists use evidence to “build a case” for a particular viewpoint; how they do this has a tremendous impact on what the general public comes to see as truth or "scientific fact."

When it comes to nutrition, many of us want to learn what foods are best for us, and to discover the "truth" about health and diet. But how much can we really know about what is true in this area? And how does the practice of science define (and limit) what we find out?

Scientific Knowledge Is Not Always Cumulative

Because scientific knowledge depends on the gradual synthesis of information over time, it might be tempting to imagine that science operates in a linear way—that we simply add new facts to old ones, continuously edging our way closer and closer to the truth. However, as American science historian Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996) has pointed out, it doesn’t always work that way.

Kuhn says science is not necessarily cumulative, because groundbreaking discoveries revolutionize not only our understanding of biology or chemistry or physics, but also our understanding of science itself—our notions about what is and isn't knowable about the world, and what we can and can’t investigate. That is, a new discovery can transform the way science is practiced, changing the kinds of questions we are able to ask and answer, and requiring scientists to reexamine some of the conclusions drawn from previous research. In addition, as certain ideas become popular, others (regardless of validity) may be left behind rather than integrated into an evolving picture of how the natural world functions.

Scientific Paradigms

The practice of science at any given place and time operates within a specific paradigm that has evolved according to previous inquiry, the types of technology available to scientists, and popular ways of seeing the world.

For our purposes in this course, we will define a paradigm as: the philosophical and theoretical framework of a scientific discipline, including what is deemed worthy of study, what kinds of questions are asked, how experiments are carried out, and the way results are interpreted.

The paradigm within which scientists are operating at any particular moment in time shapes our collective worldview to a huge degree. Indeed, we can’t see outside it. Scientific paradigms do shift slowly over time, as a result of new discoveries or new ways of thinking.

How Paradigms Shift

The simple graphic below provides a very general picture of the way science alters our perception of the world, including what it is scientifically possible to know. A description of each box, along with one or more examples, follows the graphic.

All of us operate from general worldviews that we don’t form by ourselves; they are shaped to a great extent by the knowledge and beliefs common to our time and place.

Example: Before people knew about germs, they sometimes saw disease as punishment for bad behavior. When entire populations fell ill, poisonous vapors or foul odors from sewage were held responsible.

Worldviews are informed to a great degree by the scientific thinkers and the scientific paradigm of a particular era.

Example: In the 1600s, scientists were investigating the notion of spontaneous generation—that is, the idea that some lower life forms might arise spontaneously from nonliving matter (e.g., flies from manure or maggots from decaying corpses). Even after Italian physician Francisco Redi showed that covering meat with a net prevented maggots' appearing (explaining that the net kept flies from laying eggs on the meat), belief in spontaneous generation remained widespread in the scientific community and the general public.

Sooner or later, someone receives new information or has a new idea that challenges the popular worldview, and that cannot be satisfactorily explained with available scientific theories. New technology often plays a part in the acquisition of such information. The social or political position of the person who receives this new information is important too. His or her capacity to influence the scientific dialogue affects the degree to which new thinking is embraced.

Examples:

With the invention of the microscope, we were able to see that microorganisms existed.

In the 1700s, Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, wife of the British ambassador to Turkey, saw Turkish women practicing smallpox prevention by injecting pus from victims' smallpox lesions into healthy people's veins. As an aristocrat as well as a published writer, Lady Montagu's social standing afforded her the opportunity to promote the practice in the medical establishment upon her return to England.

Scientists formulate hypotheses to guide investigation and perhaps explain this new information. A hypothesis is a specific, testable prediction about the relationship between two or more variables. They use the scientific method (a method of inquiry we will explore further in the next module) to test these hypotheses.

Example: Following Lady Montagu's observations (as well as some of his own), physician Edward Jenner began to suspect that cowpox could be transmitted deliberately from one person to another to protect against full-­blown infection. In 1796, he found a dairymaid with cowpox lesions on her hands and arms, and used matter from these lesions to inoculate an 8-­year-­old boy, hypothesizing that exposure to the disease would actually prevent the boy from developing it. The boy did experience mild symptoms in the days that followed, but regained health on the 10th day. When exposed to cowpox again a few months later, he did not develop the disease, and Jenner concluded that his hypothesis had been correct.

As scientists test multiple hypotheses over and over again, they observe patterns and ultimately formulate theories—evidence‐based principles intended to explain some aspect of how the world works. Wide acceptance of these theories may end in changing our shared worldview. However, even after these theories come to be popularly accepted as "true," they may be falsified if evidence to the contrary is presented. The scientific community will continue debating alternative views, raising questions, and testing the validity of various ideas using the scientific method.

Examples:

In 1857, Louis Pasteur demonstrated the link between microorganisms and food spoilage, later showing that microorganisms present in the air could contaminate seemingly sterile solutions.

Then, in 1876, Robert Koch showed that bacteria could cause disease (demonstrating that the bacterium Bacillus anthracis caused anthrax in sheep), and germ theory was firmly established. However, not everyone in the scientific community remains satisfied that germ theory fully captures the complex relationship between germs and disease.

As scientists' conclusions are presented to the public, we decide how to apply what we've learned. This doesn't just happen on an individual level (what should I personally do with this information?), but affects all of us profoundly when new concepts gain widespread acceptance, and come to influence popular practice and national policies.

Example: Germ theory—the theory that there are external microbes that invade the body and cause a variety of diseases—is now widely accepted. It is part of our current medical paradigm to seek out and rid the body of microorganisms that cause disease. Treatment generally takes the form of surgery and medication; prevention includes the use of vaccines to keep germs under control.

It's important to remember that scientific discoveries don't always move us toward more complete or correct answers. The collective worldview simply shifts when new ideas of any kind are widely embraced. Although it may now be impossible to imagine not knowing about microorganisms, for example, germ theory itself may limit our thinking about disease. For example, the theory of biological terrain, originally developed by Claude Bernard (1813-­1878) holds that the body's ability to heal depends on its internal environment—that is, disease occurs when the internal environment is favorable to it. Although there is evidence to support this idea as well, it has long been perceived as "competing" with germ theory. And the widespread acceptance of germ theory may in fact have prevented credible concepts underlying the theory of biological terrain from being integrated into our understanding of human pathology.

Change Is Hard

Finally, it is worth pointing out that paradigm change generally happens slowly. Groundbreaking scientific theories throughout history have met with resistance when they challenged the status quo. Many of the findings that led to the establishment of germ theory, for example, were rejected at first by scientists and the general public. In 1848, Ignaz P. Semmelweis discovered that puerperal fever, an infection common to European maternity hospitals, could be prevented if medical students performing autopsies on deceased patients washed their hands in chlorinated lime water before examining pregnant women. Even though the rate of puerperal fever decreased dramatically in Semmelweis's hospital, many physicians continued to believe the practice of hand-­washing to be useless. And even after John Snow discovered the source of the cholera epidemic in London to be contaminated water from the Broad Street pump—and the cholera epidemic subsided after the pump was closed—many people still could not accept the idea that invisible organisms could spread disease.

Other fields of scientific inquiry provide additional examples. The Catholic Church ordered Nikolai Copernicus's De Revolutionibus suspended until it could be "corrected"—the notion that the Earth moved and the Sun did not was deemed "false and altogether opposed to Holy Scripture." The same decree prohibited any work that advanced the mobility of the Earth or immobility of the Sun. Later, Galileo Galilei was convicted of heresy for building on Copernicus’s views. He was placed under house arrest for the rest of his life. Darwin's theory of evolution and the current theory of climate change are two more modern examples of extremely controversial theories.

From a purely scientific perspective, however, we must reject or amend an old worldview when we've amassed so much evidence to the contrary that we can no longer accept it.

A New Paradigm for Nutrition Science

In the State of Health lecture, Dr. Campbell advocates replacing an old "reductionist" nutrition science paradigm with a future "wholistic" paradigm. As we shall see throughout this course, the work that led up to Dr. Campbell's theory that a whole food, plant-­based diet best supports human health has indeed altered his philosophy about how science should be conducted. He envisions a paradigm for the future in which we examine the impact of multiple nutrients on multiple health outcomes, arguing that we’ll learn a good deal more that way about the relationship between nutrition and health. In the modules that follow, we will examine our current paradigm and consider Dr. Campbell's proposed paradigm in more detail.